King Kong vs. Movie Pirates
Caoz writes "The New York Times is running an interesting article about movie piracy with Peter Jackson providing some comments. There a couple of comments that I thought were surprising. Like an executive admitting that file sharers are not the biggest threat to Hollywood. From the article: 'There is a very dark, black cloud in this game. It's not in the hands of kids who live next door to you; it's organized groups and organized crime.' Why are they suing bitorrent users then?"
It's not in the hands of kids who live next door to you; it's organized groups and organized crime." Why are they suing bitorrent users then?"
Haven't you realized this very dark and cloudy organized group they're referring to is the Bitorrent User Group (BUG)?
I do have another question though - Why don't consumers buying/wearing fake branded products get arrested?
A Nike t-shirt is probably as easy and cheap to copy and produce as a DVD movie. Imagine law enforcement officers roaming the streets and ripping counterfeited t-shirts off materialistic girls.
Rock that crushes, Paper & Scissors that don't matter.
Because bittorrent users won't find you and pop a cap in your ass like organized crime sydicates tend to do.
Why are they after BT users more than the crime syndicates? Because BT users are a far more high-profile target. And BT users don't have the money or clout to get themselves out of trouble. When a BT user is charged, they usually fall on their knees begging for a settlement. When (more like if) the crime syndicates are charged, money talks and suddenly the case "disappears".
It's like asking a bully why he picks on the little guys. He's afraid of messing with kids his own size.
unable to resolve function slashdot.sig(), aborting...
I don't like this article. It claims that box office releases are "unprofitable, expensive form of marketing".
The truth is that hollywood has made an art of hiding profits ever since they started signing profit sharing agreements with actors and directors. Sure, a crappy movie isn't going to make a good ROI. But the movie industry generally makes out quite well.
Five years ago when Napster was getting sued, everyone on Slashdot--editors included--rallied behind the idea that they should lay off the companies providing the apps and going after the individual infringers, because that was fair and logical. I think nobody expected they'd actually do that. And now they are, and so the rallying cry has changed.
"Sufferin' succotash."
cheap labor conservatives - they want to keep you hungry enough to be thankful for minimum wage.
I am a musician. I play an instrument, and I take great enjoyment in my creations; I love to share them with others. I take pride in my hobby, and it's very disrespectful for you to call it "wankery." Yes, I'm an actual musician. Nobody pays me, but that doesn't mean I'm not a real musician. Look up the word in a dictionary, you insensitive clod.
I am deeply and personally motivated to make music. Furthermore, I don't believe in demanding money. Sure, I will accept money sometimes or even try to get it if I feel like I can, but that's not the point. I'd rather share with everyone and not take away anyone's freedom. Their freedom to play and enjoy my music if they like it--their freedom to share it with their friends and family--their freedom to change it if they think they can make it better.
Music is not proprietary; you don't own it. You do it because it makes you feel good and it makes others feel good. When you give something to them, they'll surely give back, but that doesn't necessarily have to come down to a bottom line. You can't measure humanity in dollars.
I'm sick and tired of money-sucking suits weaseling their way through our legal system and culture, making art into something I wish it weren't--profitable. I'm tired of capitalist entities invading our privacy and stamping on our freedom to manage our data and systems in a way that seems right to us. I'm tired of yuppies like you trying to say that you know what's best for me and my vocation.
I don't own your computer, the electricity you paid to run it, the data you have stored on it, or any of the equipment or services you use to modify or transmit that data. I DON'T own the CD I sold you or the data that's on it. I DON'T own any of the ideas, concepts, or expressions that may arise from the data.
I love the art more than you do. You didn't spend hours on an instrument every day for years just because you loved the beautiful sounds you could make. You don't have the dream of making music, or the fulfillment of making that dream a reality. You don't like music enough to do that. You haven't put in the time and effort that I have, and until you do, you're going to have a difficult time of convincing me that you're entitled to that little opinion of yours.
One is to go after the uploaders. Make big press with saying that "even though this 14 year old girl makes straight A's..we still took her down because what she was doing was illegal".
Next thing... some journalist will find out that a son or daughter of a high-profile politician (mayor, congressman, senator) has been downloading all the latest Britney Spears or 50 Cent hits. This will result in court-case with lotsa lawyers and media. Let's see who's going win... the ??AA and their lawyers or the senator and his political power.
Would be interesting, wouldn't it?